https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764187 Interim protection was considered appropriate where the petitioner mounted a prima facie jurisdictional challenge to invocation of section 74(5) of the CGST Act, contending that the show-cause notice did not specify particulars of alleged suppression in relation to invoices for a road construction project. The Court allowed the hearing on the notice to proceed, but restrained the respondents from passing any final order during the pendency of the petition without the Court's permission. The operative effect was to preserve the petitioner's challenge while permitting the departmental adjudicatory process to continue up to the stage of final decision. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Apr 2025 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764187 Interim protection was considered appropriate where the petitioner mounted a prima facie jurisdictional challenge to invocation of section 74(5) of the CGST Act, contending that the show-cause notice did not specify particulars of alleged suppression in relation to invoices for a road construction project. The Court allowed the hearing on the notice to proceed, but restrained the respondents from passing any final order during the pendency of the petition without the Court's permission. The operative effect was to preserve the petitioner's challenge while permitting the departmental adjudicatory process to continue up to the stage of final decision. Case-Laws GST Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764187